Utilizing AI questionnaire translations in cross-cultural and intercultural research
Insights and recommendations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11208596 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jonas R Kunst (0000-0002-5319-1256, University of Oslo, corresponding author), Kinga Bierwiaczonek (0000-0002-2251-5633, Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa) |
| Year | 2023 |
| Volume | 97 |
| Pages | 101888 |
| Publication date | 2023-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | International Journal of Intercultural Relations (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0147-1767 • E-ISSN: 1873-7552 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.ijintrel.2023.101888 |
| OpenAlex | W4386621473 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 11 |
| References cited | 15 |
In this research paper, we investigated the viability of AI-supported translations of survey materials in intercultural and cross-cultural research, comparing the quality of machine translations to traditional human translations. Focusing on the HEXACO personality inventory, we translated the original English inventory using Google Translate and GPT-3.5 into 33 languages for which validated human translations exist. The statistical similarity between human- and machine-generated translations varied considerably between the target languages. It was highest for target languages from the same language family as the source language, arguably because this relatedness allowed for more direct machine translations. Consistent with this reasoning, the genetic similarity between languages largely explained the differences observed. GPT’s temperature setting determining how stringently or freely a text is translated had little influence on the similarity estimates, but very high levels tended to produce somewhat lower statistical similarity. To validate the quality of the machine translations, a group of social scientists rated the translation in a language for which the human and machine translations statistically converged strongly. Although the human translation was rated as being of higher quality than four out of five machine translations, these differences were relatively small. Crucially, the social scientists did not rate the human translation as significantly better than the GPT 3.5 translation with the lowest temperature setting. Based on these insights, we propose a framework outlining four recommendations for utilizing AI-supported translation in cross-cultural and intercultural research, involving AI to varying degrees in the forward-back translation process
Biology · Epistemology · Linguistics · Machine translation · Natural language processing · Personality · Quality (philosophy · Similarity (geometry · Translation (biology · Artificial Intelligence · Computational and Text Analysis Methods · Computer Science · Cultural Differences and Values · Psychology · Social Psychology
Cómo mejorar la traducción literaria del español al chino asistida por la inteligencia artificial
Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Regulation of Positive Affect
Spoiling the Spoils
The role of AI in international communication
A Study of AI ‐Supported Cross‐Cultural Learning and Its Influence on Cross‐Cultural Understanding, Learning Behaviour and Writing Performance of Learners in Authentic Contexts
AI in multilingual organizational communication
Meta-autoethnography as a co-constructive descriptive and narrative methodology
Re‐Imagining the Epistemic Possibilities of GPT for Public Administration Research in Competitive Settings
Reducing or reinforcing gender bias? A study on the application of ChatGPT in translation from a feminist perspective
Determinants of outbound traditional Chinese medicine tourism from established regions
Building Bridges Between Computational Methods and Human Translation
Relational mobility predicts social behaviors in 39 countries and is tied to historical farming and threat
Mega7
The Distribution of the Flora in the Alpine Zone. 1
The stringdist Package for Approximate String Matching
Universals in the Content and Structure of Values
Welcome to the Tidyverse
Differences Between Tight and Loose Cultures
Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1
LmerTest Package
Psychometric Properties of the Hexaco Personality Inventory
Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research
| Unique citing works | 11 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 11 |
| Citation span | 2025 - 2026 (2) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 11 |